Bombay High Court

SITABAI ASARAM NADEversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY LAND ACQUSITION AND SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court erred; the refusal was based on a technical ground and the conditional order was not self‑operative, and therefore the lower‑court orders were quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, a 97‑year‑old woman, was the respondent in a land‑acquisition case and was subject to a no‑evidence order on 16 June 2025. She applied to deposit a cost of Rs 2,000 and to have the order restored, receiving a conditional order that required her to appear for cross‑examination and pay the cost, else the order would vacate automatically. Because of her frail health she filed an application under Section 148 CPC seeking a 15‑day extension to deposit the amount, but the trial court rejected it for lack of a medical certificate. She subsequently filed another application for permission to deposit the cost, which was also refused on the ground that the earlier conditional order had become self‑operating. The High Court held that the lower court erred in insisting on a medical certificate without giving her an opportunity to produce one and in treating the conditional order as automatically vacated. Accordingly, the High Court set aside both lower‑court orders, directed the petitioner to deposit the Rs 2,000 within two weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in refusing an extension of time for depositing costs on the ground of absence of a medical certificate.
Whether the conditional order was self‑operative and thus automatically vacated upon the petitioner’s failure to comply.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 148

Subjects

land acquisition
civil procedure
extension of time
cost deposition
elderly litigant
procedural fairness
Section 148 CPC
conditional order
vacated order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38682
1 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

42 WRIT PETITION NO. 14961 OF 2025

Sitabai Asaram Nade
VERSUS
Competent Authority Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer And
Another
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14970 OF 2025
Sitabai Asaram Nade
VERSUS
Competent Authority Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer And
Another
…..
Mr. Vaidya Ameet Raveendra, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Munde, Senior Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1.
Mr. F. F. Shirpurkar h/f., Mr. S. S. Kazi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
…..

CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 24 AUGUST 2026

PER COURT :

1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge,

Senior Division, below Exhibit 67, dated 10 October 2025, and order

below Exhibit 79, dated 4 December 2025, in LAR No.87 of 2018.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is an old lady, aged 97 years, who is respondent No.1 in the Original

proceedings before the Trial Court.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application at Exhibit

Kiran Kawre
2 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

– 67, praying for permission to deposit the cost amount and for

restoration of the order by setting aside the no-evidence order passed

against her on 16 June 2025. After hearing the parties, the learned Joint

Civil Judge, Senior Division, recorded that the matter was fixed for

evidence on 4 September 2023, the petitioner has filed her affidavit of

examination-in-chief and thereafter remained absent for cross-

examination. It was further recorded that she had remained absent for

more than 2½ years and had failed to submit herself for cross-

examination. However, considering the reasons stated in the application,

her application was allowed by granting a fair opportunity to the

petitioner, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the

objection petitioner on the next date. The order further observed that if

the respondent Sitabai Asaram Nade failed to remain present on the next

date for cross-examination and to pay the cost, in such contingency, the

order shall stand vacated.

5. This order was passed on 3 October 2025. The petitioner thereafter

filed an application at Exhibit – 67 under Section 148 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, seeking extension of time to deposit the amount granted by

the Court vide order dated 3 October 2025. It was also stated that she

could not remain present because her health was not keeping well. In

the application, she sought 15 days’ time to deposit the amount. This

application was filed on 10 November 2025. The respondent No.1 filed a

‘say’ opposing the said application.
Kiran Kawre
3 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

6. According to the respondent, on failure of the present petitioner to

remain present and deposit the amount, the conditional order had

already come into force and the order passed below Exhibit -67,

automatically stood vacated. The application below Exhibit – 67, filed by

the petitioner seeking extension of time, was rejected by the Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Aurangabad, on 10 October 2025, on the ground that the

application for extension of time was not accompanied by a medical

certificate.

7. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that

after the said order was passed below Exhibit – 67, the petitioner filed

another application below Exhibit – 79, seeking permission to deposit the

costs directed by the order passed below Exhibit – 67 and for setting

aside the order of vacation. A ‘say’ was also filed by the respondent on

the said application. Thereafter, the order below Exhibit – 79 was passed

on 4 December 2025, refusing permission to deposit the amount as

requested in the application at Exhibit – 79.

8. It is the contention of the petitioner that the reason for refusing

extension of time by the learned Judge is not appropriate and is based on

a flimsy ground. Considering the age of the petitioner, the Court ought

not to have insisted upon for filing a medical certificate. Applicant being

97 years old lady and in a frail condition, the Court ought not to have

insisted on the medical certificate. According to him, considering the

substantive right of the petitioner involved in the land acquisition
Kiran Kawre
4 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

proceedings, technicalities should not have been insisted upon so as to

defeat the substantial rights of the petitioner. According to the learned

advocate, non-filing of the medical certificate is merely a procedural

irregularity which could have been got resolved had the Court directed

the petitioner to produce such certificate.

9. The learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 has opposed

the prayer made by the petitioner, contending that the order passed by

the Reference Court on 16 June 2025 was a self-operative order and, on

failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount, the order

automatically stands vacated. Therefore, the Court has rightly passed the

orders below Exhibit – 67 as well as 79. Mr. Munde, appearing for the

competent authority, also supports the said order.

10. I have perused the order, application filed by the petitioner for

extension of time for depositing the cost awarded to the objection

petitioner, as well as the application seeking permission to deposit the

said amount. The first application was filed by the petitioner seeking

extension of time for depositing the amount on the ground that she being

an aged person, she could not remain present for hearing and could not

deposit the cost awarded within time, considering that she has merely

requested 15 days’ time to deposit the amount, the application ought to

have granted by taking a liberal approach, however, it has been rejected

merely on the ground that the application was not accompanied by a

medical certificate. Considering the advanced age of the petitioner, the
Kiran Kawre
5 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

insistence on a medical certificate was uncalled for. As argued by the

learned advocate for the petitioner, if the Court intended for the

petitioner to support the application with a medical certificate, the Court

ought to have granted an opportunity to petitioner to produce such

certificate. Such opportunity was not granted, and the substantive right

of the petitioner came to be denied by refusing to extend the time as

requested in the application at Exhibit -67.

11. Thus, this order needs to be set aside by granting an opportunity to

the petitioner to deposit the amount. When the application at Exhibit –

79 was filed, seeking permission to deposit the amount, since already the

time extended was over. Permission has been denied on the ground that

the order passed below Exhibit – 67 was a conditional order and had

already come into force, since it was a self operative order. Even this

order needs to be set aside. Since her earlier application at Exhibit – 67

was already filed before the date assigned for depositing the amount, and

the application for extension of time was already pending. An

opportunity is denied to the petitioner on a technical ground, namely,

absence of a medical certificate. The order dated 10 October 2025 below

Exhibit – 67 and the order dated 4 December 2025 below Exhibit – 79 in

LAR No. 87 of 2025 are, therefore, quashed and set aside.

12. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the

costs, to be paid to the respondent, within a period of two weeks form the

date of this order in the trial Court.
Kiran Kawre
6 42-WP-14961-2025.odt

13. In view of the aforementioned directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.

WRIT PETITION NO. 14970 OF 2025

14. The contesting respondent No.2 in the present writ petition shall

file reply affidavit within two weeks.

15. Stand over to 7 September 2026.

[ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]

Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…